?iga Lenarc(ic( wrote:
> ....
> .
>
> An offtopic remark:
> - I have been exploring /src/ of Maxima but it's a very unfriendly
> place to be. Function naming is cryptic and there's no documentation
> available (for old code). I for instance don't know what add* vs add2
> does - and would have to spend some amount of time inspecting the
> source code to understand.
neither do I, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were written by
different people and did exactly the same thing.
> I understand nobody will go documenting /src/, but perhaps we should
> make a 'rule' to always add a description line to the function one
> modifies and lack any description.
I agree 100%. I also think that if someone changes a program, it should
be noted in the source code who made the change, when and why.
> Common Lisp offers some kind of a doc string for defun-s and other
> definitions - it's probably the best facility in this case.
comments in the files are, I think, better because you are more likely
to feel comfortable adding more material.
the documentation strings are stored in the binary, I suspect.
> Even a one sentence description of what some randomnamed function in
> /src/ does would be most helpful for newcomers like myself. I don't
> think it's much effort for someone who already understands /src/
> functions, but it's invaluable if you're new to the code.
Some code is mysterious to everyone, unfortunately.
> This would make Maxima a bit more friendly project to contribute to.
> - also some guidelines about internal function naming conventions
> would be helpful (perhaps in a nice PDF), with perhaps basic maxima's
> function one has to know to extend Maxima (how to multiply, divide,
> add numbers and so on).
Not exactly responsive to your question, but there is some info here..
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/simplifier.txt
RJF